Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Ocean1]

Ill take her version of reality over yours any day



Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Is that because you're a fellow lesbian stormtrooper? Or just because you're also a raging socialist fuckwit?

[Brian d marge]

Raging socialist fkwit

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Scuba_Steve]

Jane Kelsey? Really?

Did you read the draft? What, specifically in there do you have a problem with?

Have you read any of the releases???

[Ocean1]

Have you read any of the releases???

Couple. As with this annex to the transparency draught it surprises me how any number of normally sane people can contrive to read completely different meanings from what's supposed to be unequivocally phrased statements prepared by the world's best in that field.

It shouldn't, it's just another example of how humans shape perceptions to accommodate their preconceptions, nothing special there really.

[sugilite:Me]

Jane Kelsey? Really?

Did you read the draft? What, specifically in there do you have a problem with?

Seriously? Did you read it?
I do not give a fuck who the messenger is, more the message itself.
"(d) the need to recognize the value of pharmaceutical products and medical devices
through the operation of competitive markets or by adopting or maintaining procedures
that appropriately value the objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance of a
pharmaceutical product or medical device."

Does that not ring alarm bells in your head?

[pete376403]

http://readersupportednews.org/news-...enefits-scheme

Aussies don't seem to be wildly enthusiastic either.
John Key said that we wouldn't end up paying more for drugs because, if the prices did go up, the government would make up the difference. Exactly where does John Key think the government gets its money from?

[Ocean1]

Seriously? Did you read it?
I do not give a fuck who the messenger is, more the message itself.
"(d) the need to recognize the value of pharmaceutical products and medical devices
through the operation of competitive markets or by adopting or maintaining procedures
that appropriately value the objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance of a
pharmaceutical product or medical device."

Does that not ring alarm bells in your head?

I did.

And I don't waste time listening to people with a known agenda and a history of distorting stories to suit it, she's cried wolf more or less all of her career.

Alarm bells? Not really, it's a draft, by definition incomplete and unfinished. Also, did you consider the "need to recognise the value" could easily be considered a protection against untested or unproven products?

And then...

"On the understanding that this Annex does not apply to procedures undertaken for
the purpose of post-market subsidization of pharmaceutical products or medical devices
procured by public healthcare entities where the pharmaceutical products or medical devices
eligible for consideration are based on the products or devices that are procured by public
healthcare entities"

Sorta sounds like public healthcare entities get to do pretty much what they want wrt pricing, availability and subsidy levels. Don't it?

Which was pretty much my point, people read what they want to see, no matter the source.

Also, doesn't the fact that the extracts from that source are selective not ring alarm bells with you? Why not show us the lot? Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

[Scuba_Steve]

Also, doesn't the fact that the extracts from that source are selective not ring alarm bells with you? Why not show us the lot? Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

There we go, the whole thing... https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/page-1.html

And while the TPPA is a draft, it's so far not been a good draft & hasn't changed much over it's existence, even then it's usually been for the worse.

[sugilite:Me]

Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

Well apparently WE cannot be trusted with any of the story, hence the "behind closed doors".
Irony right there eh.

Honestly, you think politicians and business corporates can be trusted to look after our best interests all the while DELIBERATELY keeping us in the dark?
Again....Seriously?

[Brian d marge]

The ttpa is in its second or possibly the third attempt . . The investor dispute section is already in place and will just be expanded under this new draft



Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Brian d marge]

Oceans lovable really . . I can tell he has found his old pair of sandles and birkensocks . .just cant find the old donovan record .

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[gjm]

Also, doesn't the fact that the extracts from that source are selective not ring alarm bells with you? Why not show us the lot? Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

So... Why won't the government let the public see the actual document until some time after it has been signed and passed into international law? Bear in mind that this is just one aspect of it - the scary stuff includes the provision for corporates to sue countries should they feel their interests are not adequately represented. Phillip Morris tobacco vs Australia, for a start.

And once these agreements are in place, they cannot be rescinded by an individual country. (Actually, that may or may not be true. It is certainly a very commonly stated view.)

[Ocean1]

There we go, the whole thing... https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/page-1.html

And while the TPPA is a draft, it's so far not been a good draft & hasn't changed much over it's existence, even then it's usually been for the worse.

That's the same selected bit as the previous link. The point is that anyone presenting selected or edited parts of a document is usually doing so to promote their own views.

In terms of trade agreements actually agreed to there's been historically far more never agreed. It doesn't necessarily mean they've not been successful, there's a vast amount of trade done in the process of failing to agree how best to do it.

[Ocean1]

So... Why won't the government let the public see the actual document until some time after it has been signed and passed into international law? Bear in mind that this is just one aspect of it - the scary stuff includes the provision for corporates to sue countries should they feel their interests are not adequately represented. Phillip Morris tobacco vs Australia, for a start.

And once these agreements are in place, they cannot be rescinded by an individual country. (Actually, that may or may not be true. It is certainly a very commonly stated view.)

Because that's one of the terms of participation in the negotiations. Probably because whole markets have been completely fucked in the past by advanced knowledge of trade agreement details.

The scary stuff is certainly a worry, but as you say, is it fact? It seems more likely to me to be a bit of a red herring, I can see inept bureaucrats allowing sign off on some slightly dodgy wording in any given document, but sign away national sovereignty? Irrevocably? Having read the same strident bleating about exactly that for fucking years beforehand?

[Scuba_Steve]

That's the same selected bit as the previous link. The point is that anyone presenting selected or edited parts of a document is usually doing so to promote their own views.

In terms of trade agreements actually agreed to there's been historically far more never agreed. It doesn't necessarily mean they've not been successful, there's a vast amount of trade done in the process of failing to agree how best to do it.

That's a whole section there has been many more sections also released. But releasing it "in parts" could be due to difficulty obtaining the complete document... it's not like anyones been forthcoming with the info

& this is WAY more than a trade agreement, very little of the TPPA relates to trade & even if it were about trade it's still no advantage to NZ, we're not expected to see anything in our favour until 2030; I'm expecting the US to have lost power by then